If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

Honestly, i haven't used this scheduler since experiments with BFS. Is it much better compared to that one?

It's the almost the same but with improvements. This aims to be tickless and runs at 100HZ compare to BFS's 1000HZ but with guarantee latency deadlines. It's way better than the kernel's default CFS on heavy loads and interactive multitasking operations. The only problems is that older more reliable kernels are not supported. So you'll need to run this scheduler on the latest stable release.

1 like

Comment

Is it possible to have a review and benchmarks between CFS, MuQSS and PDS ( https://cchalpha.blogspot.com/ )?
From it's fork from MuQSS, PDS scheduler has been under hard developement and it seems very interesting!

5 likes

Comment

Is it possible to have a review and benchmarks between CFS, MuQSS and PDS ( https://cchalpha.blogspot.com/ )?
From it's fork from MuQSS, PDS scheduler has been under hard developement and it seems very interesting!

Not huge differences between PDS and MuQSS, but the whole -ck patch series i guess give a wee bit more to it. So i would recommend doing the whole -ck patchset if you are comparing tho.
However Alfred Chen has launched a new scheduler - BMQ - BitMap Queue. Seems interesting tho, and supposedly a wee bit "lighter" than PDS. Will be interesting to follow the development of that tho.

Comment

Con as always is the man, would we awesome if he stepped on and agreed to maintain MuQSS in the Linux kernel, then we would see its inclusion in Linux kernel upstream, would be a big win for desktop users. MuQSS and F2FS gives me great desktop experience and low latency, while CFS with BTRFS performs the worst (audio lags & mouse stutters under heavy disk I/O load). Stock Linux CFS scheduler is still optimized best for >1024 cpu-core workloads and desktop users are left out and have no easy choice.